I'd like to help with this. I'd like to get a clear picture of these interfaces myself, so marking them up would be a great way to do this. I don't have a good feel for how to split these into sets, but I'm happy to take input. I would naturally favour annotations or javadoc, but I'll probably do something quicker, outside of the code, in the short term to get a straw man to be picked at before thinking about editing the code.
Kelvin. On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > In the 2.x docs we created a page to list SPIs and extension points > [1]. This is a long list and concerns me because; > > - it's difficult for the user wanting to extend Tuscany to get a feel > for what they need to do > - it's difficult for us to track how the SPI is changing and evolving > as we continue to make milestone release > > Here are a few thoughts that come to mind. > > - split the list to clarify which interfaces are expect to be extended > and which are intended to be used > - it may be possible to group the SPIs to show which are needed in > order to build a particular extension, e.g. a binding > - I'd like to identify the SPIs in code, for example, using a comment > or annotation. We can then at least find them and someone looking at > the code will know it's intended as an SPI > - I'd like to be able to track when SPIs change so that we can warn > people. Given the previous point we could do a quick and dirty test > and hash the SPI marked files to detect when they change. In the > longer term we could do functional/semantic tests > > Anyone else have thoughts on this? > > Regards > > Simon > > [1] > http://tuscany.apache.org/documentation-2x/tuscany-2x-extensibility-and-spis.html > > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >
